Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016 |71
A Comparison between Male and Female Students’ Language
Learning Strategies Preference
Muhammad Fauzan Ansyari*, Hasni Rahmi**
*English Education Department,
State Islamic University Sultan Syarif Kasim of Riau,
**
English Education Department,
State Islamic University Sultan Syarif Kasim of Riau,
Abstract
This research focuses on comparing the language learning strategies
preference between male and female students at State Senior High School 12
Pekanbaru. The aim of this research is to find out the language learning
strategies of male students of the tenth grade at State Senior High School 12
Pekanbaru, to find out the language learning strategies of female students,
and to find out whether there is or no a significant difference on language
learning strategies preference between male and female students. A total of
90 male and 90 female students were participated in this research. They were
taken from 45% of the total population. By using Simple Random Technique,
9 male and 9 female students were randomly taken from each class. The data
were collected by using adapted SILL questionnaire version 7.0 translated to
Bahasa Indonesia. By using Independent sample t-test formula on SPSS
version 17 the collected data were analyzed. The findings show that both
male and female students language learning strategies preference were
Metacognitive Strategies, and there is no significant difference on the
language learning strategies preference between male and female students in
learning English at State Senior High School 12 Pekanbaru. Based on the
data analysis, the researchers concluded that there is no significant
difference on the language learning strategies preference between male and
female of the tenth grade students at State Senior High School 12 Pekanbaru
in learning English.
Keywords: Language Learning Strategies, Preference, Gender, Adapted SILL
Questionnaire version 7.0, Senior High School.
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
72| IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016
1. Introduction
Learning English as a foreign
language is having some problems and
difficulties because the social and
situation of where English is used do
not support the learners to communicate
in English in their daily life situation.
While to have successful language
learning, learners are demanded to
master four language skills namely
speaking, writing, reading and listening,
and language components such as
grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation,
etc. thus language learners need strategy
to help them master the language, and
manage their own learning.
Learning strategies are parts of a
larger system included in the process of
learning and acquisition of a second or a
foreign language. Oxford (1990:8)
states that, “language learning strategies
are specific actions taken by the learners
to make learning easier, faster, more
enjoyable, more self-directed, more
effective, and more transferrable to new
situations”. According to her, the use of
these strategies are influenced by a
variety of factors such as degree of
awareness, stage of learning task
requirements, teacher expectations, age,
sex, nationality, general learning style,
personality traits, motivation level, and
purpose for learning the language.
Learners are inevitably variable.
They have certain ways in learning and
figuring something out. When learning
a foreign language, they use a number
of different strategies serving as a tool
that helps them to independently master
it. Many of them may not even be aware
of the strategies they are using as it has
become a natural and automatic process
for them. And the use of these strategies will not be the same among them,
because their individual differences
such as gender, age, learning style,
motivation, previous experience in
language learning, and learner's belief.
Therefore, Cohen and Dörnyei (2002
cited in Obzori) said that the most
important individual differences among
learners relate to their age and gender.
A lot of researches conducted to
find out the relationship between
language learning strategies and
genders. According to Oxford (1990),
gender has significant influence on the
language learning strategies use, female
students use different strategies than
male students, and female students use
more strategies than male. Recent study
by Aslan (2009) found that the most
frequent used strategies of female
student are Compensation Strategies,
and male students are Metacognitive
Strategies.
State Senior High School 12
Pekanbaru is one of the state senior high
schools in Pekanbaru that offers English
to students as one of the subjects taught.
In the process of teaching and learning
English, State Senior High School 12
Pekanbaru used Curriculum 2013.
Based on Curriculum 2013, learning
English is aiming at “developing
communicative competence in oral and
literal for the level of information”
(BSNP 2013:308). Based on the
preliminary study of the researchers on
10th
July 2015 in State Senior High
School 12 Pekanbaru, especially for the
tenth grade students, it is clear that
some of the tenth grade students of
State Senior High School 12 Pekanbaru
were encountering the problems and
difficulties in learning English,
especially in using appropriate language
learning strategies.
The problem of the students can
be seen in the following phenomena:
1. Some of the female students
often used metacognitive
strategy in learning English.
2. Some of the male and female
students used the same strategy
in learning.
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016 |73
3. Some of the male students often
used compensation strategy in
learning English.
4. Some of the male students were
using more strategies in
learning.
Based on the phenomena, it is
clear that some of male and female
students had a lot of problems in using
appropriate language learning strategies
in learning English. Considering the fact
among the findings found by
researchers about the preference of
using language learning strategies are
different among learners related to their
gender, thus, the researchers are
interested in researching the problems
above into a research project to answer
the following research questions:
1. What are the language learning
strategies of male students of the
tenth grade at State Senior High
School 12 Pekanbaru in learning
English?
2. What are the language learning
strategies of female students?
3. Is there any significant
difference on the language
learning strategies preference
between male and female
students?
In respect to the research
questions, the hypotheses for
this research are formulated as
follows:
Ha: There is a significant difference
on the language learning
strategies preference between
male and female of the tenth
grade students at State Senior
High School 12 Pekanbaru.
Ho: There is no significant
difference on the language
learning strategies preference
between male and female of the
tenth grade students at State
Senior High School 12
Pekanbaru.
2. Review of Literature
a) The Individual Variables In
Learning
Individuals are inevitably
variable. They have certain learning
styles and strategies, include in learning
a foreign language. Griffiths (2008:94)
believes that many factors construct the
outcome of an individual„s language
learning; there are learner variables
(such as aptitude, learning style,
motivation, age, beliefs, culture, gender,
personality, metacognition, or
autonomy) and learning variables (such
as vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation,
function, skills, teaching or learning
method, strategy instruction, error
correction, or task). All of these
variables create unique pattern to each
learners.
b) The Nature of Language Learning
Strategies
The language learning strategies
are not newly created strategies, but
have been used by ancient storytellers
thousands of years ago. They used
mnemonic tools to help remember the
narrative. Nowadays, the language
students use these and other strategies to
develop communicative competence.
The definitions of the learning
strategies have not been uniformly
defined. Many experts have defined
language learning strategies from
different points of view. According to
Wenden and Rubin (1987:19), language
learning strategies are “any sets of
operations, steps, plans, and routines
used by learners to facilitate the
obtaining storage, retrieval and use of
information”. While Richards and Platt
(1992:209) say that “learning strategies
are intentional behavior and thoughts
that learners make use of during
learning in order to better help them
understand, learn, or remember new
information”.
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
74| IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016
Rigney (1987:165) states that
learning strategies are “operations used
by learner to facilitate the acquisition,
retention, or retrieval of information”.
While O‟malley and Chamot (1990:1)
defined learning strategies as “the
special thoughts or behaviors that
individuals use to help them
comprehend, learn, or retain new
information”. Then, Cohen (1990:4)
states that “learning strategies are
processes which are consciously
selected by learners and which may
result in actions taken to enhance the
learning or use of a second or foreign
language through the storage, retention,
recall and application of information
about that language.”
Moreover, learning strategies are
defined by Oxford (1990:8) as “specific
actions taken by the learner to make
learning easier, faster, more enjoyable,
more self-directed, more effective, and
more transferrable to new situations.”
These definitions show that the weight
in foreign language teaching and
learning is changing from teacher
centered to learner centered instruction.
And this change has brought language
learning strategies to the center of
attention for some teachers.
According to Liang (2009:199),
he states that: Although each of these arguments
describes learning strategies from
a unique perspective, altogether
they may have helped us get a
general notion of what are learner
strategies:
·Learning strategies are either
behavioral thus observable, or
mental then not observable.
·Learning strategies could be
either general approaches or
specific actions or techniques
adopted to learn a Target
Language (TL).
·Learners are generally aware of
what approaches or techniques
they have used in language
learning, despite some
subconscious activities under
certain circumstances.
c) The Features of Language
Learning Strategies
Oxford lists twelve basic
features of learning strategies that the
strategies are oriented with the
development of communication
competence in a foreign language that
includes interaction between learners.
Table 1. The Features of Language Learning Strategies (Oxford, 1990:9)
Language Learning Strategies:
1. Contribute to the main goal, communicative competence.
2. Allow learners to become more self-directed.
3. Expand the role of foreign language teachers.
4. Are problem-oriented.
5. Are specific actions taken by the learner.
6. Involve many other aspects of learner, not just the cognitive.
7. Support learning both directly and indirectly.
8. Are not always observable.
9. Are often conscious.
10. Can be taught.
11. Are flexible.
12. Are influenced by a variety of factors.
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016 |75
d) The Classification of Language
Learning Strategies
Oxford (1989) in her Strategies
Inventory for Language Learning
(SILL) emphasized six categories
namely: Memory strategies (e.g.,
grouping, representing sounds in
memory), cognitive Strategies (e.g.,
repeating, analyzing, getting the idea
quickly and taking notes), compensation
strategies (e.g., switching to the mother
tongue, using other clues),
metacognitive strategies (e.g., linking
new information with already known
one, self-monitoring), affective
strategies (lowering anxiety by use of
music, encouraging oneself and
discussing feelings with others) and
social strategies (asking for
clarification, cooperating with others
and developing cultural understanding).
In this research, the researchers
will use Oxford‟s classifications of
language learning strategies. According
to Oxford, language learning strategies
are divided in to two major classes:
direct and indirect. These two classes
are subdivided into a total of six groups
(memory, cognitive, and compensation
under direct class; metacognitive,
affective, and social under the indirect
class).
e) The Research on Language
Learning Strategies
Research of foreign language
learning strategies began in the nineteen
seventies (Rubin, 1975; Savignon,
1972; Stern, 1975). During the eighties
and the nineties, learning strategies
became one of the most intriguing areas
of study in foreign language learning
(MacIntyre, 1994). The main research
issues addressed by the researchers
dealing with language learning
strategies are related to the role of
strategies in language acquisition, to the
impact of strategies on language
teaching, and to the correlation and the
comparison of strategies to other
individual traits of learners, such as
learning style, attitude towards learning,
motivation, foreign language anxiety
and other factors.
f) The Language Learning
Strategies Used Between Genders
Learning strategies have been
studied from different perspectives,
based on which it was concluded that
numerous individual variables affect the
selection of learning strategies, such as
gender, age, motivation for language
learning, cognitive learning style,
maturity level, previous experience in
language learning, learner's beliefs and
other factors. Therefore, Cohen and
Dörnyei (2002) believe that the most
important individual differences among
learners relate to their age and gender.
In line with the statements above,
Nyikos (2008:78-79) states that the
differences in language learning
preferences between males and females,
in some cases are statically significant.
The research carried out by
Zimmerman and Pons (1990, in Lee &
Oxford, 2008) has found that females
use metacognitive strategies as planning
and monitoring strategies. As regards
gender differences in the use of learning
strategies, some studies indicate that the
connection between strategy use and
gender appears to be blurred (Dadour &
Robbins, 1996; Oh, 1996; Park, 1999 in
Lee & Oxford, 2008).
The term gender is widespread
used by people referring to male and
female in social. Numerous empirical
researches have shown that gender has a
significant effect on the extent of
strategy use. Females use learning
strategies more often than males
(Dreyer & Oxford, 1996; Green &
Oxford, 1995; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Lee
& Oh, 2001; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995;
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
76| IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016
cited in Lee and Oxford, 2008:9).
Results of the research carried out by
Oxford et al. indicate that gender has a
significant effect on the frequency of
strategy use. The research findings
indicate that females more frequently
use memory, cognitive and social
strategies.
Oxford and Nyikos (1989:291-
300) examined the use of learning
strategies on a sample of 1200 adult
French, Spanish, Italian and German
language learners and demonstrated that
gender plays a decisive role in the
selection of strategies. The research
results show that females tend to deploy
all types of strategies more frequently,
which corresponds to the results of
previous researches on the role of
gender in foreign language learning.
These findings were also replicated in
the research conducted by Ehrman and
Oxford (1989) on a sample of 78 adult
learners, including students and
professors at the faculties of
philological studies. The languages
covered by the research included
Indonesian, Turkish, Italian, Hungarian
and Arabic.
In accordance with the previous
research, gender differences in the use
of strategies were revealed. It was
shown that female respondents used
general learning strategies more often,
and authentic strategies, strategies of
getting and communicating meaning, as
well as self-direction strategies were
more frequently deployed by female
respondents.
The research carried out by
Zimmerman and Pons (1990, in Lee &
Oxford, 2008) has found that females
use metacognitive strategies as planning
and monitoring strategies. As regards
gender differences in the use of learning
strategies, some studies indicate that the
connection between strategy use and
gender appears to be blurred (Dadour &
Robbins, 1996; Oh, 1996; Park, 1999 in
Lee & Oxford, 2008).
Kaylani (1996:75-88) has found
that male students differ from their
female counterparts in the extent of
strategy use. She has found that female
students use memory, cognitive,
compensation and affective strategies
more frequently than male students and
thus the correlation between gender and
language proficiency has been
established.
Dongyue (2004:5) carried out
quite an interesting research on the
correlation between language
proficiency, gender and strategy use.
The research findings indicate that there
are statistically significant gender
differences in memory, affective and
overall strategy used by females. The
results indicate that females are better at
managing and controlling their
emotions than their male counterparts.
The author also points out that the
difference in the frequency of strategy
use between men and women may be
affected by other variables such as
ethnic background, cultural background
and language learning environment.
Aslan (2009) has found a
specific result of language learning
strategies used between genders. He
found that male students differ from
female students in the extent of strategy
use. He has found that Male preferto use
Metacognitive Strategies while female
prefer to use Compensation Strategies.
He also found that there is a significant
difference between male and female
preference in Metacognitive and Social
Strategies in learning English.
In conclusion, according to
(Dreyer & Oxford, 1996; Green &
Oxford, 1995; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Lee
& Oh, 2001; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995;
cited in Lee and Oxford, 2008:9),
female students use more strategies than
male students. The research findings by
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016 |77
Aslan indicate that males more
frequently use Compensation,while
males are more frequently use
Metacognitive strategy.
g) The Importance of Language
Learning Strategies
Chamot and Kupper (1989:13-
24) says that there is a significant
correlation between the use of various
learning strategies applied by foreign
language learners and their learning
achievement. Hosenfeld (1977:117-129)
also support the statement above, he
said that, good language learners use a
large number of effective learning
strategies, unlike the less successful
learners. Good learners are also able to
select and combine strategies that are
appropriate to the task. While Oxford
and Crookall (1989:404-419) believes
that successful learners combine certain
cognitive strategies (translation,
analysis, noting) with specific
metacognitive strategies (self-
evaluation, planning and organizing)
Nyikos (1987) cited in Gimeno
(2002) says that less successful learners
use fewer strategies, and their strategies
are limited by the type of strategy.
Often, less successful learners are not
aware of the strategies they use. Then if
a less successful learner is aware of
his/her use of strategies, he/she can
combine them and use them in a
successful way. Stern conducted a very
interesting study of good foreign
language learners and identified
learning strategies used by good
learners. For good learners, according to
Stern (1975), personal learning style,
i.e. encouragement of positive learning
strategies is of great importance, as well
as an active approach to the learning
task, a tolerant approach to the target
language, and empathy with the
speaker. Stern (1975) also mentioned
the importance of the technical know-
how of how to tackle a language, the
importance of experimentation and
planning strategies in an attempt to
develop the target language into an
ordered system, and the willingness to
constantly revise that system
Early studies of learning
strategies are associated with the
strategies used by good foreign
language learners. Good language
learners have a wide repertoire of
learning strategies and use a series of
strategies, rather than a single one,
when engaged in a learning task. One
fact is obvious – good language learners
use a larger number of strategies in the
process of foreign language learning,
unlike not so successful learners (Rubin,
1975, Bialystok, 1979, in Gimeno,
2002; O'Malley and Chamot, 1990;
McDonough, 1999 and Skehan, 1989 in
Harris and Grenfell, 2004:116-130).
It is necessary to emphasize the
importance of learning strategy
instruction (Oxford and Nyikos, 1989,
in Gimeno, 2002). The importance of
explicit strategy instruction is also
highlighted by many researchers.
Wenden (1998) believes that strategy
training will be much more effective if
learners are informed about the value
and purpose, and a possible transfer to
nonlinguistic tasks. A similar attitude is
expressed by Oxford (1990), Cohen
(1998), O'Malley and Chamot (1990)
who stated that explicit strategy
instruction involves the raising of
students‟ awareness of the strategies
they use, modeling of strategic thinking,
naming of individual strategies, practice
and student self-evaluation. The aim of
explicit strategy instruction and the
development of individualized strategy
systems refer to the help provided to
learners in raising their awareness of the
strategies they already use and to the
encouragement to develop a set of new,
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
78| IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016
adequate and effective strategies within
a particular language context.
Another objective of strategy
instruction is to encourage leaner's
autonomy and self direction, to enable
learners to choose their own strategies
in a spontaneous way, without constant
teacher's intervention. Learners should
be able to oversee and evaluate the
effectiveness of strategy use and to
develop problem-solving skills. The
teacher can teach strategies and practice
them, but each learner is individually
responsible for the selection and
implementation of an adequate strategy.
A learner will select a strategy that suits
him/her best and the focus is on how to
learn and not what you learn. Oxford
(1990) believes that the main purpose of
strategic training is to make language
learning effective, to foster team spirit
among learners and teachers, to learning
to learn language and how to practice
strategies that raise self confidence.
Given the university settings of
the current study, these links are viewed
as being of particular relevance. The use
of language learning strategies is
consistently linked with language
proficiency (Green & Oxford, 1995;
Wharton, 2000). In general, it is agreed
that using language learning strategies
has a positive impact on language
proficiency. Apparently, good language
learners orchestrate and combine their
use of particular types of strategies in
effective ways (O‟Malley & Chamot,
1990).
2. Method
a) Population and Sample
The population of this research
was the tenth grade students at State
Senior High School 12 Pekanbaru in
2015/2016 academic year. It consisted
of ten classes; with the number of
population 394 students (188 male and
206 female students). The sample of
this research was 90 male and 90 female
students taken from ten classes. (9 male
and 9 female students in each class) was
taken by using simple random
technique. According to Lohr (2009), it
is used when every possible subset of n
units in the population has the same
chance of being the sample. Arikunto
(2006:134), says that, “if the total
population is more than 100, it is better
to take 25% or more.” In this research,
the researcher took 45% from the total
population of male and female.
Table 2. Sample of the Research
NO Class Population Number
of
Population
Sample Number of
Sample
(45%) Male Female Male
(45%)
Female
(45%)
1 X MIA 1 18 21 39 9 9 18
2 X MIA 2 17 23 40 9 9 18
3 X MIA 3 17 22 39 9 9 18
4 X MIA 4 9 29 38 9 9 18
5 X MIA 5 23 17 40 9 9 18
6 X IIS 1 20 20 40 9 9 18
7 X IIS 2 20 19 39 9 9 18
8 X IIS 3 22 18 40 9 9 18
9 X IIS 4 26 13 39 9 9 18
10 X IIS 5 16 24 40 9 9 18 Total 10 Classes 188 206 394 90 90 180
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016 |79
b) Instrumentation The adapted SILL questionnaire
(Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning) version 7.0 by Oxford (1989)
for ESL/EFL was used as the instrument
of this research. It was adapted and
translated to Bahasa Indonesia to
measure the language learning strategies
preference by the tenth grade students
of State Senior High School 12
Pekanbaru.
This questionnaire consisted of
50 items which are divided into six
parts of strategies; Part A (Memory
Strategies), Part B (Cognitive
Strategies), Part C (Compensation
Strategies), Part D (Metacognitive
Strategies), Part E (Affective
Strategies), and Part F (Social
Strategies). The responses of each item
are based on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 to 5. (1= “Never or
almost never true of me”, 2=”Usually
not true of me”, 3= “Somewhat true of
me”, 4=“Usually true of me”, 5=
“Always or almost always true of me”).
This scale is used to interpret the
strategies preference level. Table 3. SILL Profile of Result (Oxford, 1989)
High Always or almost always used 4.5 to 5.0
Usually used 3.5 to 4.4
Medium Sometimes used 2.5 to 3.4
Low Generally not used 1.5 to 2.4
Never or almost never used 1.0 to 1.4
c) Procedure The collected data of the
adapted SILL questionnaire were
analyzed by using descriptive statistic to
show the general use of the students‟
language learning strategies. Before
analyzing the data, the students‟ gender
had to be coded into number for the
statistical need. In this research the
Male students was coded as “1”, while
female students was coded as “2”. Then,
the data were classified into its gender
and group of strategies to find out the
students‟ strategies preference.
To answer the research question,
the collected data were then analyzed in
two steps by using independent sample
T-Test formula of SPSS version 17.0.
Firstly, the data were analyzed
descriptively to find out the language
learning strategies preference by male
and female students in learning English.
In this step the researchers used the first
output of SPSS. Secondly, the data were
analyzed comparatively to find out the
significance difference on language
learning strategies preference between
male and female students. In this step,
the researchers used the second output
of the SPSS.
d) Validity and Reliability The SILL questioner has been
extensively field-tested with a large
number of respondents who are learning
foreign languages in various settings for
internal consistency, reliability and
content validity of the items. The SILL
appeared to be the only language
learning strategy instrument whose
reliability and validity have been
extensively checked and results
published. It is demonstrated to be
highly valid and reliable, and used for
both research and classroom practice
(Oxford, 1990). Moreover, considering
the social and culture situations of the
respondents, a tryout is needed to check
the reliability of the adapted SILL
questionnaire. In line with the statement
above, Pariani in Suryanto and Sutinah
ed (2007:85) says, “In a social research
although the questions on a
questionnaire is already been
internationally standardized valid and
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
80| IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016
reliable, the researcher should check its
reliability by considering the social and
culture situations of the respondents of
research.” Thus, on 1st March 2016, the
researchers administrated the adapted
SILL questionnaire on 20 students of
the tenth grade students at State Senior
High School 12 Pekanbaru. They were
consisted of 10 male and 10 female
students from the tenth grade natural
science 5 (X MIA 5) and will not be
taken as samples of the research. From
the tryout, the researchers found that the
reliability (Cronbach alpha) of the
adapted SILL was 0.88 which means
that it has a high reliability to be used as
the instrument of this research.
3. Result In this research, the researchers
conducted three formulations of the
research questions. The data were
analyzed in two steps by using SPSS
version 17.
a) Descriptive Analysis of Male and
Female Students’ LLS
Preference
In this step, the researchers
provided the analyses on the language
learning strategies preference in
learning English between male and
female students at State Senior High
School 12 Pekanbaru. The Independent
sample T-Test formula of SPSS was
used to analyze the data and the first
output table was used to see the mean of
the data.
Table 4. Descriptive Analysis of Male and Female Students’ LLS Preference
Gender N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
Memory 1 90 2.918 .5229 .0551
2 90 2.948 .5724 .0603
Cognitive 1 90 3.014 .5381 .0567
2 90 2.987 .6071 0.064
Compensation 1 90 3.312 .7582 .0799
2 90 3.350 .7052 .0743
Metacognitive 1 90 3.331 .7145 .0753
2 90 3.384 .6873 .0724
Affective 1 90 3.056 .5581 .0588
2 90 3.301 .5644 .0595
Social 1 90 3.258 .6754 .0712
2 90 3.260 .6925 .0730
Overall 1 90 3.108 .4741 .0500
2 90 3.160 .5278 .0556
From the table above, the language
learning strategies preference by male
students were Metacognitive strategies
(M=3.331). The next strategies were
Compensation strategies (M=3.312),
Social strategies (M=3.258), Affective
strategies (M=3.056), Cognitive
strategies (M= 3.014), and Memory
strategies (M=2.918).
Meanwhile, the language
learning strategies preference by female
students were also Metacognitive
strategies (M=3.384). The next
strategies were Compensation strategies
(M= 3.350), Affective strategies
(M=3.301), social strategies (M=
3.260), Cognitive strategies (M= 2.987),
and Memory Strategies (M= 2.948).
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016 |81
In overall strategies used, female
students (M= 3.160) were using more
language learning strategies in their
learning English than the male students
did (M=3.108). But, both of them were
using language learning strategies in the
same level of medium.
Furthermore, in order to find out
the students‟ level of frequency of using
language learning strategies, the
students‟ average of using Language
learning strategies is then classified into
some levels according to Oxford‟s SILL
Profile of Result 1989. The summary of
the students‟ preference levels of
Language Learning Strategies are
showed in the following table.
Table 5. Male and Female Students’ level of LLS
Gender Memory Cognitive Compensation Metacognitive Affective Social Overall
1 Mean 2.918 3.014 3.312 3.331 3.056 3.258 3.108
Level Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
2 Mean 2.948 2.987 3.35 3.384 3.301 3.26 3.16
Level Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
In overall strategies used, female
students (M= 3.160) were using more
language learning strategies in their
learning English than the male students
did (M=3.108). But, both of them are
using language learning strategies in the
same level of medium.
b) Comparative analysis of male and
female students’ LLS preference Comparative analysis was the
last step of computation to ascertain the
result findings. It was used to compare
the significant difference on Language
Learning Strategies preference in
learning English between male and
female students at State Senior High
School 12 Pekanbaru.. The second
output of Independent sample T-Test
was used to analyze the significant
difference of language learning
strategies preference by male and
female students. The SPPS output can
be seen as follows:
Table 6. Comparative Analysis of Male and Female Students’ LLS preference
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
95%
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
F Si
g.
t df Sig.
(2-
taile
d)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Lower Upper
Memory Equal
variances
assumed
1.632 .203 -.367 178 .714 -
.0300
.0817 -.1913 .1313
Equal
variances not
assumed
-.367 176.5
59
.714 -
.0300
.0817 -.1913 .1313
Cognitive Equal
variances
assumed
1.514 .220 .325 178 .746 .0278 .0855 -.1410 .1965
Equal .325 175.4 .746 .0278 .0855 -.1410 .1965
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
82| IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016
variances not
assumed
71
Compensat
ion
Equal
variances
assumed
.807 .370 -.346 178 .730 -
.0378
.1091 -.2532 .1776
Equal
variances not
assumed
-.346 177.0
76
.730 -
.0378
.1091 -.2532 .1776
Metacognit
ive
Equal
variances
assumed
.528 .469 -.510 178 .610 -
.0533
.1045 -.2596 .1529
Equal
variances not
assumed
-.510 177.7
32
.610 -
.0533
.1045 -.2596 .1529
Affective Equal
variances
assumed
.180 .672 -2.935 178 .004 -
.2456
.0837 -.4107 -.0804
Equal
variances not
assumed
-2.935 177.9
78
.004 -
.2456
.0837 -.4107 -.0804
Social Equal
variances
assumed
.031 .861 -.022 178 .983 -
.0022
.1020 -.2034 .1990
Equal
variances not
assumed
-.022 177.8
89
.983 -
.0022
.1020 -.2034 .1990
Overall Equal
variances
assumed
1.278 .260 -.698 178 .486 -
.0522
.0748 -.1998 .0954
Equal
variances not
assumed
-.698 175.9
87
.486 -
.0522
.0748 -.1998 .0954
According to Levene’s Test for
Equality of Variances, the Sig. of the
overall strategies was 0.260, which is
bigger than 0.05. Therefore, it can be
assumed that variances were equal.
Then, it is possible to test the hypothesis
by using Equal Variances Assumed row
of the t-test in the table 6.
From the table above, it can be
seen that Sig. (2-tailed) value of the
overall strategies was 0.486 which is
bigger than 0.05, meaning that, the
probabilities are > 0.05, thus, Ho is
accepted, and Ha is rejected. In other
word, there is no significant difference
on language learning strategies
preference between male and female of
the tenth grade students at State Senior
High School 12 Pekanbaru.
The detail analysis of hypothesis
for each strategy is presented as
follows:
a. Memory strategies
From the table, the value of t for
memory strategies is -0.367 with
probability 0.714 > 0.05, Ho is
accepted. In conclusion, there is no
significant difference on Memory
Strategies preference in learning
English between male and female of the
tenth grade students at State Senior
High School 12 Pekanbaru.
b. Cognitive Strategies
From the table, the value of t for
cognitive strategies is 0.325 with
probability 0.746 > 0.05, Ho is
accepted. In conclusion, there is no
significant difference on Cognitive
Strategies preference in learning
English between male and female of the
tenth grade students at State Senior
High School 12 Pekanbaru.
c. Compensation Strategies
From the table, the value of t for
Compensation strategies is -0.4363 with
probability 0.730 > 0.05, Ho is
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016 |83
accepted. In conclusion, there is no
significant difference on Compensation
Strategies preference in learning
English between male and female of the
tenth grade students at State Senior
High School 12 Pekanbaru
d. Metacognitive Strategies
From the table, the value of t for
Metacognitive strategies is -0.510 with
probability 0.610 > 0.05, Ho is
accepted. In conclusion, there is no
significant difference on Metacognitive
Strategies preference in learning
English between male and female of the
tenth grade students at State Senior
High School 12 Pekanbaru.
e. Affective Strategies
From the table, the value of t for
Affective strategies is -2.935 with
probability 0.004 < 0.05, Ha is
accepted. In conclusion, there is a
significant difference on Affective
Strategies preference in learning
English between male and female of the
tenth grade students at State Senior
High School 12 Pekanbaru.
f. Social Strategies
From the table, the value of t for
Social strategies is -0.022 with
probability 0.983 > 0.05, Ho is
accepted. In conclusion, there is there is
no significant difference on Social
Strategies preference in learning
English between male and female of the
tenth grade students at State Senior
High School 12 Pekanbaru.
4. Discussion
The data analysis revealed
several findings. First, both male and
female students‟ strategies preferences
in learning English were Metacognitive
Strategies. This research finding
confirmed the previous researches
conducted by Khalil (2005), Radwan
(2011), and Zeynali (2012), who was
also found that the both male and
female students‟ strategies preferences
in learning English were Metacognitive
Strategies. According to Oxford (1990),
Metacognitive Strategies are actions
which provide learners to coordinate
their own learning, and to help them
arranging and planning their language
learning in an efficient and effective
way. The preference uses of these
strategies by both male and female
students indicated that, both of them
were more likely to coordinate their
own learning, and had responsibility to
seek as many practice opportunities as
possible, usually outside of the
classroom. In line with the statement
above, Anderson (2008:99) states that,
“Strong metacognitive skills empower
language learners: when learners reflect
upon their learning, they become better
prepared to make conscious decisions
about what they can do to improve their
learning.”
In contrast, the findings of other
researchers found that, male and female
students‟ strategies preferences in
learning English were different. From
the descriptive data analysis by Aslan
(2009), he found that the strategies
preference by male students were
Metacognitive Strategies, while female
students were Compensation Strategies.
On the other way, Permata (2013) found
that the strategies of male students were
Metacognitive, and female students
were Compensation. Furthermore,
Kayaoğlu (2012) found that the
strategies of male students were Social
Strategies, while female students were
Affective Strategies.
Second, this research found that
there is no significant difference on the
language learning strategies preference
in learning English between male and
female students for the overall strategies
used. Unlike many previous studies,
Aslan (2009) and Zare (2010), found
that there is a significant difference of
the overall use of strategies between
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
84| IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016
male and female students. However,
this study reveals a significant
difference between male and female
students‟ language learning strategies
preference use of Affective strategies.
In the same way, Zeynali (2012) also
found that there is a significant
difference between male and female
students‟ Affective Strategies
preference.
In consistence with Oxford
(1993 cited in Zeynali 2010), female
learners tend to pay more attention to
their feelings. Another explanation for
this finding is relate to the theories of
psychology which mention that
sensitivity, empathy, nurturance and
emotion are strong female traits,
whereas aggression, dominance,
assertiveness and emotional in
expressiveness are male traits (Maccoby
& Jacklin, 1974 cited in Zeynali 2012).
Finally, although this finding
does not show a significant difference in
the preference of strategies subgroups
across gender, along with the findings
of previous studies, a careful
examination of the individual items
showed that male students used less
Affective Strategies than female
students. This indicates their reluctance
in sharing feelings.
5. Conclusion
based on the data analysis,
finally, the research about a comparison
between male and female students‟
language learning strategies preference
in learning English at State Senior High
School 12 Pekanbaru comes to the
conclusion as follows:
1. The male students‟ language
learning strategies in learning
English at Sate Senior High
School 12 Pekanbaru are
Metacognitive Strategies with
mean 3.331, in the level of
medium.
2. The female students‟ language
learning strategies are
Metacognitive strategies with
mean 3.384 in the level of
medium.
3. There is no significant
difference on language learning
strategies preference in learning
English between male and
female students at State Senior
High School 12 Pekanbaru.
Considering the results, it can be
concluded that Ho is accepted and Ha
is rejected for overall strategies. Thus,
there is no significant difference
preference on language learning
strategies in learning English between
male and female of the tenth grade
students at State Senior High School
12 Pekanbaru.
Furthermore, Ho is accepted and
Ha is rejected for the detail group of
strategies such as Memory Strategies,
Cognitive Strategies, Compensation
Strategies, Metacognitive Strategies,
and Social Strategies. Thus, there is no
significant difference on Memory
Strategies, Cognitive Strategies,
Compensation Strategies,
Metacognitive Strategies, and Social
Strategies preference in learning
English between male and female of
the tenth grade students at State Senior
High School Pekanbaru. Meanwhile,
Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted for
Affective Strategies. Thus, there is a
significant difference on Affective
Strategies preference in learning
English between male and female of
the tenth grade students at State Senior
High School 12 Pekanbaru.
REFERENCES
Aslan, Oktay. (2009). The Role of
Gender and Language Learning
Strategies in Learning English.
(Unpublished dissertation).
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016 |85
Anderson, Neil J. (2008).
Metacognition and Good
Language Learners. In Griffiths,
Carol (Ed), Lessons from Good
Language Learners. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Arikunto, Suharsimi. (2006). Prosedur
Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan
Praktik. Jakarta: Rineka
Cipta.Bungin, Burhan.
Metodologi Penelitian Sosial
dan Ekonomi. Jakarta: Kencana.
Chamot, A. U. & Kupper, L. (1989).
Learning Strategies in Foreign
Language Instruction.Foreign
Language Annual, 22. 13-24.
Cohen, A. (1990). Language Learning:
Insights for Learners, Teachers
and Researchers. New York:
Newbury House.
Cohen, Andrew D. & Zoltan Dornyei
(2002). Focus on the Language
Learner:Motivation, Styles and
Strategies. In Schmitt, Norbert
(ed.), 170-190.
Depdiknas. (2013). Kurikulum 2013
(KURTILAS). Sekolah
Menengah Atas. Jakarta:
Depdiknas.308.
Dongyue, L. (2004), EFL Proficiency,
Gender and Language Learning
Strategy Useamong a Group of
Chinese Technological Institute
English Majors. Arecls E-
Journal, 1 (A5).
Dreyer, C., & Oxford, R. (1996).
Learning Strategies and Other
Predictors of ESL Proficiency
among Afrikans Speakers in
South Africa. In R. Oxford (Ed.),
Language Learning Strategies
Around the World: Cross-
Cultural Perspectives (pp. 231-
522), Honolulu: University of
Hawaii.
Gay, L.R., and Peter Airasian. (2000).
Educational Research:
Competencies for Analysis and
Application.6th
edition. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Gimeno, V. V. (2002), Grammar
Learning through Strategy
Training: A Clasroom Study on
Learning Conditionals through
Metacognitive and Cognitive
Strategy Training, doctoral
dissertationn,
https://proxy.knjiznice.ffzg.hr–
AccessedJune, 2015.
Griffiths, Carol. (2008). Strategies and
Good Language Learner. In
Griffiths, Carol (Ed), Lessons
from Good Language Learners.
Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Harris, V. and Grenfell, M. (2004),
Language Learning Strategies:
A Case for Crosscurricular
Collaboration.Language
Awareness, 13 (2), 116-130.
Hosenfeld, C. (1976). Learning About
Learning: Discovering Our
Students’ Strategies.Foreign
Language Annuals, 9. 117-129.
Kaylani, C. (1996). The Influence of
Gender and Motivation on EFL
Learning Strategy Use in
Jordan. In Oxford, R.L. (Ed.).
Language Learning Strategies
Around the World: Cross-
Cultural Perspectives.
(Technical Report #13). (pp. 75-
88), Honolulu: Univeristy of
Hawai‟i Second Language
Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Khalil, Aziz. 2005. Assesment of
Language Learning Strategies
Used by Palestinian EFL
Learners. Bethehem University:
SPRING 2005.
Lavine, R.E. and Oxford, R.L. (1990),
Dealing With Affective Issues in
the Foreign or Second-
Language Classroom. Modern
Language Association Annual
Meeting, Chicago.
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
86| IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016
Lee, K. R., & Oxford, R. (2008).
Understanding EFL learners‟
strategy use and strategy
awareness. Asian EFL Journal,
10(1), 7.
Liang, Ting. (2009). Language
Learning Strategies – The
theoretical Framework and
Some Suggestions for Learner
Training Practice. CCSE
English Language Teaching.
Shaanxi. 2(4). 199
Lodico, Marguerite G., Dean T.
Spaulding., Katherine H.
Voegtle. (2010). Method in
Educational Research: from
Theory to Practice. 2nd
edition.
SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
MacIntyre, P.D and R.C Gardner.
(1994). The Effects of Induced
Anxiety on Cognitive Processing
in Second Language Acquisition,
17. 1-17.
McMillan, James H., and Sally
Schumacher. (2006). Research
in Education: Evidence-Based
Inquiry. 6th
edition, Boston:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Nyikos, Martha. 2008. Gender and
Good Language Learners. In
Griffiths, Carol (Ed), Lessons
from Good Language Learners.
Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Obzori, Metodički. Gender Differences
in the Use of Learning
Strategies in Adult Foreign
Language Learners. In Original
Scientific Article. 2011.
Dubrovnic University: vol 6.
P.11.
O'Malley, J. M., and Chamot, A.O.
(1990). Learning strategies in
second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge
University.
O‟Malley, J. M et al. (1985). Learning
Strategies used by Beginning
and IntermediateESL Students.
Language Learning, 35, 21-46.
Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language
Learning Strategies: What Every
Teacher should Know.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Oxford, R.L. and Burry-Stock, J.A.
(1995). Assessing the use of
language Learningstrategies
worldwide with the ESL/EFL
version of the strategy inventory
for language learning (SILL)
System, 23(1), 1-23.
Oxford, R.L and Crookall, D. (1989).
Research on Language Learning
Strategies: Methods, Findings,
and Instructional Issues.
Modern Language Journal,
73(4). 404-419.
Oxford, R.L and M. Nyikos. (1989).
Variables Affecting Choice of
Language Learnig Strategies
byUniversity Students. The
Modern Language Journal.73.
291-300.
Pariani, Siti. (2007). Pengamatan dan
Pengukuran. In Suryanto,
Bagong and Sutinah. (Ed),
Metode Penelitian Sosial.
Jakarta: Kencana.
Permata, Kartika Indah. (2013). A
Comparative Study of Gender on
Language Learning Strategies
Preference. 2013. Salatiga:
Unpublished thesis.
Radwan, Adel Abu. Effect of L2
Proficiency and Gender on
Choice of Language Learning
Strategies by University
Students Majoring in English. In
Asian EFL Journal. 2011. p.115-
163.
Richards, J.C. and H. Platt. (1992).
Longman Dictionary of
Language Teaching and Applied
Linguistic. Essex: Longman.
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016 |87
Rigney, J. (1978). Learning strategies:
A theoretical perspective. In
O‟Neil, H. F. Jr.(Ed.), Learning
Strategies. New York:
Academic Press.
Vidal, R.J. (2002). Is There a
Correlation between Reported
Language Learning Strategy
Use, Actual Strategy Use and
Achievement?.Linuagem and
Ensino, 5(1), 43-73.
Wharton, G. Language Learning
Strategy Use of Bilingual
Foreign Language Learners in
Singapore. Language Learning,
2000. 50 (2), 203–243.
Wenden, A. & Rubin, J. (eds). (1987).
Learner Strategies in Language
Learning. Hemel Hempstead:
Prentice Hall International.
Zare, Pezhman. An Investigation into
Language Learning Strategy
Use and Gender among Iranian
Undergraduate Language
Learners. In World Applied
Sciences Journal. 2010.
Marvdast: IDOSI Publications:
11 (10), p.1238-1247.
Zeinali, Simin. Exploring the Gender
Effect on EFLLearners’Learning
Strategies. In Theory and
Practice in Language Studies.
2012. Finland: ACADEMY
PUBLISHER.2.pp.1614-1620.
Fauzan, Rahmi - A Comparison between Male…
88| IJIELT, Vol. 2 No. 1 Juni 2016